Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by CowboyX

Support or it will be considered retracted that we have an illegal immigration problem and that that problem is happening at the border with Mexico.

Legal immigrants receive a medical examination to prevent those with disease from infecting American citizens. Illegal aliens entering the country without this examination pose a risk to the health of Americans. https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowb...rants-refugees

Low-skilled American workers must compete for jobs against an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants in the US workforce. This causes unnecessary high unemployment for Americans, especially for African-American workers who are unskilled. https://cis.org/Testimony/Illegal-Im...-Black-Workers

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Good, your own support classifies those seeking asylum as "inadmissables" and doesn't count them as attempting to enter the country illegally. The important number is the number of apprehensions which looks like it averages about 350,000. Has that number changed over time?

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by Ibelsd

Either crossing the border illegally is a crime or it isn't. If you don't want it to be crime, write your Congressman and support open borders. It isn't like those crossing illegally carry id cards which say things like "hard working", "gang member", "looking for free health care", etc. They cross the border and when caught, under catch and release, they almost never showed up to their immigration hearings and then 10 years later, people are crying that we can't deport them now because they have been here so long. It is just a completely corrupt system. I suppose my analogy would be better if I said would you rather your house have overpriced iron walls or no walls. You're right, the front door is absolutely wonderful. Alarm. Peephole. And for those who choose to ring the bell and come through the front door, all is well. However, anyone with half a bit of sense just avoids the door and walks through the empty space where we should have walls.

With any and every law, you have to balance the value of enforcment agaisnt the cost of enforcement. That is what I've been saying all along here. You have yet to respond to that but to say that we shouldn't have open borders. Anything we do needs to have a relative cost advantage. Yes, problems come from illegal imigration, but also there are benefits to immigration (of any sort). By creating a system that is attractive to immigrant workers and is legal, you funnel the valuable people into that channel and allow for less costly enforcement against those who could never qualify. And instead of building walls, you pursue cheaper and more effective options. Most illegal imigrants dont cross the southern border, they come in legally and then just don't leave. If you want to deal with the bulk of those you need a better internal system for identifying citizens, and that means biting the bullet on some kind of national ID. Which has all kinds of other benefits. Resistance to it is largely from the same camp that wants to erect walls. Its stupid.

I'm for more open borders, but not entirely open borders, I'm not an anarchist, clearly. But I don't want to waste money on destructive things like walls when I could instead make something constructive.

Again, and you simply refuse to acknowledge this point, all the other means of controlling immigration we agree upon aren't happening.

I am not ignoring that point, its just a terrible argument. Again its like saying that I should castrate my kids because itz the only way for them to stop having sex. How about I just let them have some sex instead? If that''s the solution, I'll stick with the original problem. Other solutions that are less stupid and destrictive are fine, but that one isn't. So I'm not supporting it even if other solutions are ignored.

So... we either get a wall or more of the same.

I'd much perefer more of the same.

And living in CA, watching tax money wasted on poverty and crime, and drugs, much of it (not all of it), a result of our illegal immigration problem and watching the quality of life decrease for middle-class people who get the brunt of the policy stick, I'd like this issue dealt with in any way possible. I am simply being pragmatic. If our corrupt, whoring politicians stepped up and chose to fix the problem, it could probably be done without a wall.

I've lived in So-Cal for the last 8 months, seems pretty nice and peaceful here. This part of the country does not have an especially high crime rate. Its a little higher than the national average, but not by a lot. Many cities with far fewer illegal imigrants have much higher crime rates. There is no real crisis in southern california. In fact crime rates are at historic lows.

Your assertions are just jinned up claims typeical of bigoted lines of argument the world over targeting anyone who isn't "like us" and blaming them for any and all social problems despite no real evidence they are having a significant impact. I'm not saying you are a bigot, but you are using their playbook here.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by Sigfried

With any and every law, you have to balance the value of enforcment agaisnt the cost of enforcement. That is what I've been saying all along here. You have yet to respond to that but to say that we shouldn't have open borders. Anything we do needs to have a relative cost advantage. Yes, problems come from illegal imigration, but also there are benefits to immigration (of any sort). By creating a system that is attractive to immigrant workers and is legal, you funnel the valuable people into that channel and allow for less costly enforcement against those who could never qualify. And instead of building walls, you pursue cheaper and more effective options. Most illegal imigrants dont cross the southern border, they come in legally and then just don't leave. If you want to deal with the bulk of those you need a better internal system for identifying citizens, and that means biting the bullet on some kind of national ID. Which has all kinds of other benefits. Resistance to it is largely from the same camp that wants to erect walls. Its stupid.

I'm for more open borders, but not entirely open borders, I'm not an anarchist, clearly. But I don't want to waste money on destructive things like walls when I could instead make something constructive.

I am not ignoring that point, its just a terrible argument. Again its like saying that I should castrate my kids because itz the only way for them to stop having sex. How about I just let them have some sex instead? If that''s the solution, I'll stick with the original problem. Other solutions that are less stupid and destrictive are fine, but that one isn't. So I'm not supporting it even if other solutions are ignored.

I'd much perefer more of the same.

I've lived in So-Cal for the last 8 months, seems pretty nice and peaceful here. This part of the country does not have an especially high crime rate. Its a little higher than the national average, but not by a lot. Many cities with far fewer illegal imigrants have much higher crime rates. There is no real crisis in southern california. In fact crime rates are at historic lows.

Your assertions are just jinned up claims typeical of bigoted lines of argument the world over targeting anyone who isn't "like us" and blaming them for any and all social problems despite no real evidence they are having a significant impact. I'm not saying you are a bigot, but you are using their playbook here.

Your boiling down everything to crime. There are plenty of other factors. How about education? Where does CA rank. You don't think illegal immigration places a strain on limited education funding? How about traffic? You don't think illegal immigration places more strain on our roads? How about housing? We have a housing shortage and it is generally unaffordable. You don't think illegal immigration impacts this problem? I've lived in So CA for 40+ years. So, I've seen how it has actually changed and become a worse place to live.

The report also notes that
"Immigrants as a group do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services, though the size of the impact is undetermined and varies considerably by country of origin, education level, and admission category."
This is an issue which we expect would be more true for illegal immigrants than other immigrants.

I am not saying all these issues are magically solved by solving illegal immigration. I am saying illegal immigration negatively impacts all the issues I've noted above. As a CA resident I pay more in taxes and see less and less in return. I see roads crumbling and schools failing. I am asked to pay more, but the additional revenues aren't being used to fix these problems. They get used to set up special programs for illegal immigrants or diverted into more welfare programs. So, yes, it is negatively impacted our quality of life. It should also be noted that illegal immigration does not impact the people making the policies. They live in gated communities or areas which price immigrants, in general out of the market so they never actually encounter the issues middle and lower class CA's are told to deal with. Oh, and then when these points and issues are brought up, the R word or bigotry are trotted out like that is an actual response. Let's suppose I am an absolute bigot for the sake of argument. It does not actually rebut any point I've made. It does not matter which playbook the data comes from. Either they are facts or they are not. Argue the merits not the person.

The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by Sigfried

It's too simple. We already have locks on the door, they keep out most people who aren't determined. But when someone is very determined a lock is not much of an abstacle. Same as the border. So we have locks already, we installed some deadbolts, and we have an alarm company working for us. The border wall is like putting up barbed wire around your house, digging a moat and installing deadly dobermans. I'm not intersted in any of that.

You probably would become interested, if your house was constantly being broken into, with your family attacked or your livelihood stolen. That is what is happening across on our southern border (of our collective house), and in much of the US to the victims of crime by illegal aliens, and to low skilled Americans unable to gain employment.

And Democrats are basically saying that it is all okay with them. They want neither border enforcement nor internal apprehension and deportations of illegals. It's just unfathomable to me how anyone can agree with those positions, unless it is all about increasing votes for Democrats in the long run. That is the only thing that makes sense of it.

Last edited by evensaul; July 6th, 2018 at 08:55 AM.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

The most outrageous thing happening on the border, which in my opinion best exemplifies the gov failure to do it's most basic and fundamental job, is that drug cartells and gangs of Mexico are on invading our country and killing our citizens on the border. This should be completely unacceptable to any American and military force should be brought to bare on the problem. This horrible situation is only rivaled by American children being kidnapped and sold into sex slavery as a direct result of soft borders. That it is not part of the national discussion is an Injustice and a travesty to our nation.

Secondarily, I don't see how the blanket argument for people coming to America is not also an argument for American invasion and control of that region. If Mexico is so bad, that it's citizens are compelled to break our laws to get in, then why should we not save all of them from their horrible country? Why should we have compassion on only the few who are driven away?

Secondarily, I don't see how the blanket argument for people coming to America is not also an argument for American invasion and control of that region. If Mexico is so bad, that it's citizens are compelled to break our laws to get in, then why should we not save all of them from their horrible country? Why should we have compassion on only the few who are driven away?

It's estimated that the declining number of Mexican migrating in the US illegally is about 100,000 per year (0,08% percent of the population)*
Do you really think 99.9% of the population of Mexico will be thankful for the sudden invasion of Gringos onto their motherland?

*The Center estimates that, since 2009, there has been an average of about 350,000 new unauthorized immigrants each year. Of these, about 100,000 are Mexican, a much smaller share than in the past. In the years leading up to the Great Recession, Mexicans represented about half of new unauthorized immigrants.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by evensaul

It's a simple question, and I'm seeking a debate about the larger picture, not every little detail of policies and enforcement measures. Should the United States have a secure border that prevents illegal immigration? Or should we have an open border that allows any who want to cross it come into our country?

I believe we should have a secure border, with controlled and legal immigration, and those attempting illegal entry should be turned back.

Is there someone who disagrees and wants to debate the issue?

Let's try to cut away some of the chaff and see where we land.

Do we want open borders or not?

For open borders:
I know we are kinda taught in school a one world gov't and such would eliminate wars, famine etc as without defense spending there would be enough money for social issues.
What people don't think about is a world wide democracy would mean people in the US would live by a "world law" not US law. One would note American's are a minority on a world wide scale. India and China would rule the world like "Seattle" (the I5 corridor) does for Wash State.

For controlled borders:
I know the middle ground people "know better" than people that take a stance, however, I don't see a choice other than a felony (an offense resulting in arrest if caught) if you want a controlled border. You can't just write them a ticket and expect them to go back to their country and apply for legal citizenship. That is more than naïve.

Having said that, the "wall" is a stupid waste of money!

Checking employers is good, but there is an illegal market that easily employs illegals so that will only get you so far.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by Vandaler

The answer always been to allocate reasonable resources after a cost/benefit analysis. The US and for that matter, all countries in the world already do that.

Let's round the cost of a secured border up to $20 billion. That would be a one-time expenditure equal to about two days of the annual federal budget. That isn't much in terms of relative cost, and I think there is a pretty large benefit. Project approved!

p.s. Good to see you.

"If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by VAN

It's estimated that the declining number of Mexican migrating in the US illegally is about 100,000 per year (0,08% percent of the population)*
Do you really think 99.9% of the population of Mexico will be thankful for the sudden invasion of Gringos onto their motherland?

I don't think that addresses my point at all. I mean, I get that there are reasons to not invade, I'm just saying that the stronger the argument is used that they are escaping from a hell hole to the land flowing with milk and honey.
Then the stronger the argument TO invade and bring milk and honey to the barren, drugscapes of Mexico. .. or any other place that makes up the incoming naked masses.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

I don't think that addresses my point at all. I mean, I get that there are reasons to not invade, I'm just saying that the stronger the argument is used that they are escaping from a hell hole to the land flowing with milk and honey.
Then the stronger the argument TO invade and bring milk and honey to the barren, drugscapes of Mexico. .. or any other place that makes up the incoming naked masses.

Can't we send them milk and honey without invading them?

Or if you mean that we should have the goal of getting rid of the drug cartels through invasion (we invade and defeat the cartels), I see absolutely no reason to think that such a thing would actually work. If defeating drug cartels is our goal, the best strategy is to legalize all drugs. And you could argue that legalizing drugs has too much of a downside on our end to make it a good idea (which probably isn't true but that's another debate) but then the exact same thing can be said for invading them. The cost to the US to invade Mexico in an attempt to correct the society is certainly greater than the cost of dealing with the 10,000 illegal immigrants.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Well it isn't 10k illegal imagrants, and I am all for legalizing drugs as an answer to that. But that isn't what I am talking about.. unless that is the only reason they come. Finally to say the the military can't defeat drug cartells is silly. Because they rely on crops and if we were determined enough we could burn all the crops effectively enough to destroy the cartels there. You don't have to kill them.. you just have to put them out of business to achieve that. But I am all for mursering them in their beds if that would but a dent in child sex trade there.
Edit.. one other thing. People seem to be quick to try and argue for reasons why we should not invade. That is not my point. I am pointing out reasons Too Invade, specifically that arguments for allowing illegals in are equally an argument for invasion.
Any argument for reasons againts I will take as a concession that this point is true, because it doesn't deny other reasonings, but notes which category these arguments fall under. Drugs are so bad that millions of immigrants WANT to come here? Then maybe we have a compelling interest to seek a military soulution. Gov so corrupt millions want to escape.. same thing.
I mean if it is bad enough.. then it is justified. The level of compassion we have for those who make it here should not dull us to the plight of those left behind.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Well it isn't 10k illegal imagrants, and I am all for legalizing drugs as an answer to that. But that isn't what I am talking about.. unless that is the only reason they come.

Either way, I don't find the notion that we can invade a country (which means we send in the military against their wishes) and then "fix" the country so that fewer people will want to leave for the US to be a valid option because I don't think it can realistically be done. If we are going to spend a bunch of US dollars to make things better in Mexico, it's probably more efficient to just give them a bunch of money earmarked for whatever improvements we think they should make. I'm not saying that that is a viable solution either - just a better one than invading.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Finally to say the the military can't defeat drug cartells is silly. Because they rely on crops and if we were determined enough we could burn all the crops effectively enough to destroy the cartels there.

I think if crop eradication could effectively destroy the cartels, it would have happened already. Crop eradication has certainly been a strategy for quite a while.

I find the notion that we can use force to end the drug war to be silly. If it would work, it would have worked by now.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

You don't have to kill them.. you just have to put them out of business to achieve that.

Which is one of the reasons I advocate legalizing all drugs. I don't think doubling down on strategies that have never worked is going to do it.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

People seem to be quick to try and argue for reasons why we should not invade. That is not my point. I am pointing out reasons Too Invade, specifically that arguments for allowing illegals in are equally an argument for invasion.
Any argument for reasons againts I will take as a concession that this point is true, because it doesn't deny other reasonings, but notes which category these arguments fall under. Drugs are so bad that millions of immigrants WANT to come here? Then maybe we have a compelling interest to seek a military soulution. Gov so corrupt millions want to escape.. same thing.

I don't disagree with the principle. Really, I'm just saying that invasion is not going to make things better. But sure, trying to help other countries be better places is a worthy goal.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

@ mican. It seems to me that crops erradication works here. As most of the drugs are imported. If you are talking about the kind of crop irradicationn that took place in the past there, I don't think that is comparable to a full military invasion with crop irradication. Thing is cartels are not idiologies. You can kill them and destroy their business. Fighting them in the jungle is not like fighting communism nor is there some big brother gov to save them. So, it most certainly think it can be done and see no reason for the pessimism you present. Now the cost anaylisis tract you present is valid. I think that the massive gov corruption down there is the deciding factor as to why it would never work to just give money.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

@ mican. It seems to me that crops erradication works here. As most of the drugs are imported. If you are talking about the kind of crop irradicationn that took place in the past there, I don't think that is comparable to a full military invasion with crop irradication.

Besides perhaos the scale of the operation, I don't see any significant difference at all nor do I see any reason to think that it would be significantly more successful than any prior eradication efforts. One huge problem is that crops can be grown in various locations and if one field is destroyed, one can always plant another one at a later time. And even complete and permanent eradication in one country would not prevent crops in other countries.

And to invade means to send in the military against the wishes of the country that's being invaded so if we invade Mexico, we would likely have conflicts with their military or whatever local forces object to the invasion. So it would seem that before we could even begin to deal with crops and such, we would have to subjugate the country's own military before we can do what we want there.

Originally Posted by MindTrap028

Thing is cartels are not idiologies. You can kill them and destroy their business. Fighting them in the jungle is not like fighting communism nor is there some big brother gov to save them. So, it most certainly think it can be done and see no reason for the pessimism you present.

The reason I am doubtful that it could work is because we've tried to do this for decades and it has never worked. If a course of action continuously fails, it's not pessimism to predict that it will fail if tried again but realism.

And while you can kill drug gangsters and such, you cannot kill the trade of hard drugs. When there's people who want to buy something, there will be someone else to sell it. And if you kill all of the sellers, then new sellers will step forward to make a profit. Ultimately, it's not a gang or an organization that leads to buying and selling of, for example, cocaine, but a market and this market will always exist. I can think of no historical example of a market of a highly desirable product being eternally destroyed.

You not proposing a new strategy but a variation on the strategy of attacking the sellers and product of a particular market with physical force and that has never worked. You are really just saying we need to attack harder and with more force. It seems little more than wishful thinking to hold that that would actually work. If such a strategy would work, it would have succeeded by now.

On the other hand, I can point to an example of gangsters selling a drug being completely put out of business. Assuming we can include alcohol as a drug and go back to when gangsters controlled the supply of alcohol and all of the havoc that occurred because of it, we destroyed that illegal market by legalizing alcohol. And by legalizing all drugs, we can destroy the drug cartels. Of course there will still be buyers and sellers but the replacement market will not be as destructive to the people, thus improving their lives (which is the goal here), and likely would even be a net benefit to the local populations since it will produce jobs.

So it's clear that if we are going to make the lives of those who are living with drug terror better, we need to legalize. More of what we've done will just result in more of what we've already had.

Re: Should the US have a Secure Border?

Originally Posted by mican

Besides perhaos the scale of the operation, I don't see any significant difference at all nor do I see any reason to think that it would be significantly more successful than any prior eradication efforts. One huge problem is that crops can be grown in various locations and if one field is destroyed, one can always plant another one at a later time. And even complete and permanent eradication in one country would not prevent crops in other countries.

And to invade means to send in the military against the wishes of the country that's being invaded so if we invade Mexico, we would likely have conflicts with their military or whatever local forces object to the invasion. So it would seem that before we could even begin to deal with crops and such, we would have to subjugate the country's own military before we can do what we want there.

I dont think any of that is true or reasonable.. except for having to deal with local military.

Originally Posted by mican

The reason I am doubtful that it could work is because we've tried to do this for decades and it has never worked. If a course of action continuously fails, it's not pessimism to predict that it will fail if tried again but realism.

I dont think it is accurate to say we have tried.. when we have not invaded. comparing 500 police to 500k troops.. is an unreasonable extrapolation.

Originally Posted by mican

And while you can kill drug gangsters and such, you cannot kill the trade of hard drugs. When there's people who want to buy something, there will be someone else to sell it. And if you kill all of the sellers, then new sellers will step forward to make a profit. Ultimately, it's not a gang or an organization that leads to buying and selling of, for example, cocaine, but a market and this market will always exist. I can think of no historical example of a market of a highly desirable product being eternally destroyed.

sure.. but that isnt what is being attacked. it is the mass gov corruption that is the target, it is harder to do and easier to manage when it comes from another state.

Originally Posted by mican

You not proposing a new strategy but a variation on the strategy of attacking the sellers and product of a particular market with physical force and that has never worked. You are really just saying we need to attack harder and with more force. It seems little more than wishful thinking to hold that that would actually work. If such a strategy would work, it would have succeeded by now.

not true and doesn't follow logically.
just to blow up your projections.. one could make drugs legal with permits, and destroy the drug cartels and the corruption they breed.

Originally Posted by mican

On the other hand, I can point to an example of gangsters selling a drug being completely put out of business. Assuming we can include alcohol as a drug and go back to when gangsters controlled the supply of alcohol and all of the havoc that occurred because of it, we destroyed that illegal market by legalizing alcohol. And by legalizing all drugs, we can destroy the drug cartels. Of course there will still be buyers and sellers but the replacement market will not be as destructive to the people, thus improving their lives (which is the goal here), and likely would even be a net benefit to the local populations since it will produce jobs.

So it's clear that if we are going to make the lives of those who are living with drug terror better, we need to legalize. More of what we've done will just result in more of what we've already had.

given that i just repeated... before reading, your point... i think you really don't understand what i am proposing. so your pessimism is unfounded.

The point is to destroy the enemy that makes mexico a shirt hole that people must run from. Drug cartels are part of that. i say you can put them out of business and destroy their income base. .. filling the gap with friendly is fine.. make it legal fine.
you just lack imagination, and are saying it cant be done... based on a false comparison.